J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

LEED Cert i f i cat ion of Campus

Bui ld ings: A Cost-Benef i t

Approach

A u t h o r Erin A. Hopkins

A b s t r a c t This is the first comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of Leadership inEnergy and Environmental Design (LEED) buildings certified within thehigher education sector. Sixteen institutions of higher education (IHEs)were surveyed with the findings focused on the upfront green premiumand down the line energy savings. The net present value (NPV), internalrate of return (IRR), and discounted payback period were calculated todetermine the financial feasibility of LEED certified buildings withinthe higher education sector. The findings indicate mixed results whenlooking at the projects from both an upfront construction cost and fulllifecycle perspective.

There are potential benefits and costs for building green on campus. In regards toLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification forcampuses, there are opportunities for universities and colleges to get involved inorder to improve their social impact, environmental impact, be a marshal in thisnew and emerging field, and help create down-the-line value within the community(Ried, 2008). Additionally, institutions of higher education (IHEs) are in a goodposition to capitalize on the long-term benefits of LEED certification, such aspotential cost savings, since they are typically long-term landholders (Ried, 2008).However, a common barrier to adoption of green development policy is theperceived increased upfront costs to build green versus conventional buildings.For example, Richardson and Lynes (2007) discover perceived higher initialcapital costs to be a financial barrier in green building at the University ofWaterloo in Ontario, Canada.

There is a lack of existing research on actual green building costs to uncover ifthis perception is warranted. The literature is mixed when determining if there isan upfront green building premium for LEED-certified buildings. To date, therehas not been a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis study conducted that looks atthe costs and benefits of green building across IHEs. Furthermore, although therehave been studies conducted with a sample of LEED-certified buildings, there hasbeen no reported comprehensive cost benefit analysis of a sample of LEED-certified campus buildings nationwide. As shown in Exhibit 1, it is apparent thatLEED registrations, which signify intent to seek LEED certification in thehigher education sector, are increasing. Therefore, it is important to know if

1 0 0 u H o p k i n s

Exhibit 1 u Annual LEED Registrations and Certifications on University Campuses

The source is Dougherty (2010, p. 7).

LEED registration and certification makes economic sense for the higher educationsector.

In 2013, there are 2,291 LEED-certified higher education projects and 3,141LEED-registered higher education sector projects that signify intent to seek LEEDcertification (J. Van Mourik, personal communication, September 16, 2013). Whenlooking at the number of postsecondary Title IV institutions, which are allowedto participate in Title IV federal student financial aid programs, there are over7,300 institutions in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics,n.d.). When comparing LEED-certified higher education projects to the numberof postsecondary Title IV institutions, it is clear that many IHEs are notparticipating in LEED, especially when considering that multiple higher educationLEED projects may be on one campus. Although the higher education sectorwithin the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is relatively new, the benefitof over 7,300 IHEs participating in a successful LEED certification building policycould be significant since this policy could generate positive environmental andfiscal outcomes. Because of this potential significance, it is important to examinethe costs and benefits of existing campus LEED-certified building projects. Thisexamination can uncover the validity of this perceived upfront cost barrier.

The purpose of this study was to discover if the perceived upfront green premiumfinancial barrier is valid by looking at actual initial costs of LEED-certified campusbuildings versus conventional campus buildings to discover whether there is anactual upfront green premium. As an upfront green premium was discovered, thetime to recover these upfront costs was calculated. Additionally, a cost benefitanalysis was performed to examine the initial building costs and operating coststhroughout the building lifecycle.

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 0 1

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

u L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w

The LEED-certified building literature with regard to financial feasibility can bedivided into the upfront green premium and the energy performance during theoperational phase of a building.

Upfront Green Premium Literature

Various researchers have found an upfront green building premium. Kats et al.(2003) explore the upfront green premium of 25 office buildings and eight schoolbuildings in California and find the upfront green premium to be $4/sf. Kats(2006) explores the additional cost to build green schools by using a sample of30 K-12 green schools constructed between 2001 and 2006 within ten states andfinds on average a green premium of $3/sf. Kats, Braman, and James (2010)explore the additional cost of building green by using a larger sample of 170 greenbuildings across multiple sectors in 33 states and eight countries completedbetween 1998 and 2009 and find a typical cost premium of about $3/sf to $9/sf.

There have also been mixed results when examining the upfront green premium.Matthiessen and Morris (2004) examine the cost of going green with LEED usedas the basis for determining the level of sustainable design. They find that manyprojects are achieving LEED certification within budget and within comparablecost ranges as non-LEED projects and stress that there are high cost and low costgreen buildings. Matthiessen and Morris (2007) re-examine the cost of going greenwith LEED used as the basis for determining the level of sustainable design. Theyfind that there is a continuing problem with the perception that green is an addedfeature and therefore an added cost. They again find that many projects areachieving LEED certification within budget and within comparable cost ranges asnon-LEED projects. Houghton, Vittori, and Guenther (2009) assess 13 LEED-certified and LEED-registered healthcare construction projects and find mixedresults, with the upfront green premium ranging from 0% to 5%.

Operational Energy Savings Literature

When reviewing the energy costs of green buildings in operation, there have beenstudies that show positive results. For example, Kats et al. (2003) find that energysavings of $0.44/sf per year justify the upfront green premium cost. Kats (2006)determines the average annual energy savings of a sample of 30 K-12 greenschools to be $0.38/sf. Furthermore, Kats, Braman, and James (2010) find annualenergy savings for 60 LEED certified buildings ranging from $0.10/sf to $2/sf.

There has also been mixed results with regard to green building operating costs.Stegall and Dzombak (2004) look at the energy cost implications for New House,the first LEED-certified silver university residence hall in the U.S. at CarnegieMellon University, based on energy modeling. When compared to the AmericanSociety of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)90.1 baseline, there is a 33% increase in energy efficiency. However, it is importantto note that the heat recovery system in New House greatly influences energy

1 0 2 u H o p k i n s

figures. When compared to a similar non-LEED Carnegie Mellon building with aheat recovery system, energy usage is 6%–12% more in New House (Stegall andDzombak, 2004). Newsham, Mancini, and Birt (2009) examine whether LEED-certified buildings are living up to their expectations by re-analyzing 100 LEED-certified buildings of various types compared to the general U.S. commercialbuilding stock using data supplied from the Turner and Frankel (2008) study. Onaverage, the sample uses less energy when compared to the general U.S.commercial building stock, but 28%–35%, depending on the parameters of thecomparison, of the LEED-certified buildings use more energy than conventionalbuildings.

There have also been negative results when looking at the actual energyperformance of LEED-certified buildings. Scofield (2002) examines the first 24months of energy performance of the Adam Joseph Lewis Center, a 13,600-squarefoot all-electric two-story classroom building completed in January 2000 and thefirst green building at Oberlin College in Ohio. An important finding of the studyincludes no energy benefits for the first 24 months of the building’s operation.

Deficiencies in the Studies

Much of the current literature is outside of the higher education sector, but canbe applied to the higher education sector as an IHE has various building types onits campus. However, initial construction costs and operating costs for the fulllifecycle need to be examined at IHEs since a campus typically does not movebased on occupancy, rental rates, and sales per square foot. Furthermore, thebuilding will most likely be owned by the university its entire life.

u D a t a

The sample was obtained by first identifying the LEED-certified campus buildingsin the U.S. This population was identified by utilizing a database called ‘‘HigherEd LEED registered and certified projects,’’ which can be found on the Center forGreen Schools’ website, a division of the USGBC and last updated in July 2013(http: / /www.centerforgreenschools.org / main-nav / higher-edu / buildings.aspx).The LEED New Construction (LEED-NC) filter was utilized as LEED-NC is theappropriate version of LEED applicable for the higher education sector for newconstruction and major renovations of individual buildings. The participants,directors of facilities or someone in a similar role within the IHE, were sent anemail with an online survey instrument that was taken from Appendix A of Kats,Braman, and James (2010) and slightly modified. The surveys were anonymousto encourage the sharing of sensitive financial information.

u M e t h o d o l o g y

There were three quantitative methods employed to answer the two researchquestions. The first research question, is there a green premium for LEED-certifiedcampus buildings, was answered by gathering the green premium dollar per square

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 0 3

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

foot figures from the data collection sheets, where available, and calculating theaverage, median, and mode green premium of the sample. After reviewing thesample for items such as outliers, with the possibility of trimming or removing,the most appropriate measure was used to measure the average green premium ofthe sample.

The second quantitative method performed was a net cost-benefit analysis on thesample of LEED-certified buildings collected during the data collection phase ofthe study to determine whether the energy saving benefits outweighed the costsof LEED-certified campus buildings throughout the building lifecycle. Thetimeframe used in this study was 25 years. Kats, Braman, and James (2010)conservatively used a 20-year time period for their cost-benefit study on allbuilding types within multiple sectors. A critique of using the same time periodfor all building types and sectors is that it does not account for the different uses,purposes, and goals of the building owners. As the current study focused onone sector, the higher education sector, one timeframe seemed appropriate.Furthermore, the costs and benefits were discounted over a timeframe that islonger than the private sector as IHEs use buildings for a longer time as they tendto be the sole building owner throughout the building lifecycle. According toCastaldi, the general life expectancy of a school building is about 50 years (ascited in Chan and Richardson, 2005, p. 7). Also, Weber and Kalidas (2004), whoperform a cost-benefit case study of a LEED-certified silver residence hall atCarnegie Mellon University, mention that they modeled the project life from 20–40 years, with 20 years being liberal and 40 years being a high estimate if thetime period does not include major renovation. Therefore, 25 years seemed to stillbe conservative so that benefits were not overstated.

This green premium dollar per square foot was used as the upfront costs of LEED-certified campus buildings and inputted into year zero of the net cost-benefitanalysis. The net energy savings, using ASHRAE 90.1 2007 as a baseline, wereinputted throughout the 25-year timeframe. Kats, Braman, and James (2010, p. 4)used a 7% discount rate and justified this rate by noting that ‘‘this rate is equalto or higher than the rate at which states, the federal government, and manycorporations have historically borrowed money, and thus provides a reasonablebasis for calculating the current value of future benefits.’’ As this study strictlyfocused on the higher education sector, the discount rate used was lower. Adiscount rate of 3.5% seemed reasonable as the timeframe was notintragenerational and private investment was not crowded out (Moore et al., 2004).

Calculating project performance criteria was done using the NPV for each survey.NPV was calculated by adding all discounted cash flows together. It is importantto note that alternatives, such as using funds on projects other than LEED-certifiedcampus buildings, were not measured, which is a limitation of this study. Theinternal rate of return (IRR) was also calculated.

The third quantitative method used was the discounted payback period in orderto ascertain the payback period for LEED-certified campus buildings. Thediscounted payback period takes into account the time value of money bydiscounting the cash inflows of the project by using a 3.5% discount rate. Note

1 0 4 u H o p k i n s

Exhibit 2 u Relationship between LEED Level and Green Premium $/sf

that the discounted payback period was not used in isolation, but merely anothercalculation tool employed to analyze the data.

u R e s u l t s

Upfront Green Premium

The average function was employed to answer the first research questionpertaining to the upfront green premium for LEED-certified campus buildings.Information was gathered on the green premium $/sf figures from 16 datacollection sheets. Responses ranged from $0.00/sf to $235.00/sf. In this case, themedian of $5.41/sf was used to better represent the population as there was anextreme outlier and the average function would have been skewed by this outlier.The distribution is positively skewed as the mean exceeds the median. This isbecause there is a high green premium/sf outlier.

The relationship between LEED level and green premium $/sf was reviewed afterremoving the outlier of $235.00/sf. As Exhibit 2 illustrates, there is no relationshipbetween LEED level and green premium/sf. The lowest green premium $/sf wasa LEED level platinum building and the highest green premium $/sf was a LEEDlevel silver building.

Annual Energy Savings

Information was gathered on the energy savings per year per square foot from thesame 16 data collection sheets. Responses ranged from $0.25/sf to $42.37/sf. In

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 0 5

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

this case, since there was an outlier, the median of $0.32/sf was used to betterrepresent the population as there was an outlier and the average function wouldhave been skewed by this outlier. The distribution is positively skewed as themean exceeds the median. This is because there is a very high annual energysavings per square foot outlier.

The relationship between LEED level and energy savings per square foot per yearwas reviewed after removing the outlier of $42.37/sf. As Exhibit 3 illustrates,there is no relationship between LEED level and energy savings per square footper year. The lowest annual energy savings $/sf were LEED level platinumbuildings and the highest annual energy savings $/sf was a LEED level goldbuilding.

Net Cost-Benefit Analysis

In order to address the second research question of lifecycle energy benefits versusthe upfront costs of LEED-certified campus buildings, a net cost-benefit analysiswas performed. Calculating project performance criteria was done using NPV,IRR, and the discounted payback period for each survey with a discount rate of3.5% and a building lifecycle of 25 years. The NPV, IRR. and discounted paybackperiod for each of the 16 surveys are shown in Exhibit 4. NPVs ranged from2$232.20 to $698.32. IRRs ranged from 220.18% to 51.02%. The discountedpayback period ranged from 0 years to 10.48 years. There were 10 surveys wherethe discounted payback period was not calculated as it exceeded the buildinglifecycle cutoff of 25 years.

u D i s c u s s i o n

Previous studies have failed to focus on the higher education sector as it relatesto LEED-certified buildings. Therefore, there was limited literature and data onthe subject. However, when reviewing the literature, the results showed an upfrontgreen premium of $0–$9/sf. For the annual energy savings, results ranged from$0.10 to $2/sf. The results for the green premium ranged from $0.00/sfto $235.00/sf. When the outlier is removed, the green premium ranged from$0.00/sf to $12.00/sf. The annual energy savings ranged from $0.17/sf to $42.37/sf. When the outlier was removed, the annual energy savings ranged from$0.17/sf to $0.75/sf. When comparing the existing results to the current resultswithout the outliers, they seem to be somewhat in line.

There were two extremely high outliers in this study. Firstly, there was a greenpremium reported of $235/sf. The respondent may have answered in a differentmeasurement versus dollar per square foot. That is why the median was used inthis case. Secondly, there was an annual energy savings of $42.37/sf reported.Again, the respondent may have answered in a different measurement versus dollarper square foot and that is why the median was used in this case as well.

It was surprising to see that there was not a relationship between green premiumsand LEED certification level. The lowest green premium $/sf was a LEED level

1 0 6 u H o p k i n s

Exhibit 3 u Relationship between LEED Level and Energy Savings $/sf/Year

Exhibit 4 u Net Cost–Benefit Analysis Calculations

NPV IRR Discounted Payback Period

(232.20) 220.18% n/a

(5.74) 21.72% n/a

(4.09) 20.36% n/a

(2.39) 20.36% n/a

(1.37) 1.10% n/a

(1.26) 1.26% n/a

(1.23) 1.25% n/a

(1.09) 1.53% n/a

(0.40) 2.81% n/a

(0.28) 3.03% n/a

2.99 14.66% 7.64

4.24 10.65% 10.48

4.64 17.22% 6.47

5.31 14.13% 7.93

10.89 51.02% 2.07

698.32 n/a 0.00

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 0 7

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

platinum building and the highest green premium $/sf was a LEED level silverbuilding. This could be due to different building projects obtaining different LEEDpoints in order to achieve their particular LEED certification level. For example,one building project may have spent more money to obtain 1 LEED point forbrownfield development versus development density and community connectivityfor 5 LEED points. The municipality and location of the IHE within thatmunicipality may determine if an IHE would even qualify for the developmentdensity and community connectivity. For example, it is unlikely a building wouldqualify, for example, if it is in a rural community with strict zoning densityrestrictions.

It was also surprising to see that there was not a relationship between annualenergy savings and LEED certification level. The lowest annual energy savings$/sf were LEED level platinum buildings and the highest annual energy savings$/sf was a LEED level gold building. Again, this could be due to different buildingprojects obtaining different LEED points in order to achieve their particular LEEDcertification level. For example, one building project may have decided to obtain2 LEED points for introducing green power while another project may have optedto obtain 2 LEED points for material reuse. This focus on introducing green powerversus material reuse could potentially cause an increase in energy savings forone project versus another.

For the surveys where NPV was greater than 0, LEED-certified campus buildingswere profitable. For the surveys where IRR was greater than the discount rate of3.50%, LEED-certified campus buildings were profitable. For the discountedpayback period, results less than the building lifecycle of 25 years made a campusbuilding project profitable. It was interesting that only six surveys had a positiveNPV. Additionally, only six surveys had IRRs greater than 3.5% and paybackperiods less than 25 years. These results show that the majority of campusbuildings in this study did not make sense financially. However, there were stillmultiple building projects that did make sense financially.

u C o n c l u s i o n

Incentives/grants can be one way to lower the upfront green premium for thehigher education sector. Future research should look at public policy regardingLEED to see what incentives and/or grants help in decreasing the upfrontgreen premium when building to LEED certification standards. Many states,municipalities, and IHEs have enacted policies to require buildings be built toLEED standards. Implementing incentives and grants rather than strictlyrequirements can help incentivize private IHEs to build to LEED standards thatdo not have a LEED requirement in place.

As no relationship was seen between the upfront green premium and LEED level,it would be interesting to take a more detailed look at projects to uncover whythis may be. This could include collecting and reviewing LEED checklists to seewhich credits were obtained and whether specific credits cost more than others toobtain. Furthermore, common themes or trends could be revealed.

1 0 8 u H o p k i n s

Although the majority of the projects in this study did not make sense financiallyby the measures of NPV, IRR, and the discounted payback period, there weremultiple projects that demonstrated positive financial results. Therefore, futureresearch is recommended to review financially favorable projects in order tounderstand why their projects work from a financial perspective.

Another recommendation would be to educate decision makers at IHEs on thevalue of building lifecycle analysis versus strictly upfront construction costs. Thismay involve changing the perspective of many presidents and provosts who havedecision-making powers as perspectives on building costs have historically beenmore short-sighted versus long-sighted. This education is essential so decisionmakers understand the short- and long-term ramifications of building projects.Furthermore, building lifecycle analysis is especially important at IHEs wherebuilding lifecycles tend to be longer as the IHE is typically the sole owner of thebuilding.

Many IHEs have enacted policies to require buildings be built to LEED standards.This may be due to the LEED rating system being the leader in green buildingrating systems. However, there may be campus buildings that are beingconstructed using other green rating systems. This would be interesting to lookinto for future research to see the distribution of various green building systemsamong IHEs, as well as the relative upfront and down the line costs and savings.

Additionally, buildings may be being built to LEED standards or other greenbuilding rating system standards, but not being certified due to the cost ofcertification. This may partially explain why many IHE campus buildings are non-LEED certified. This would be helpful to look into in the future.

LEED certification standards are uniform across the U.S. However, differentregions within the country have different climates. It would be interesting to seewhether certain LEED points are easier to achieve in different climates anddifferent densities.

Furthermore, as we live in a global context, looking abroad for solutions to greenbuilding rating systems would be recommended for future research. Searchinginternationally for green building rating systems that are succeeding and failingwould be useful to review for implementation in the U.S. Perhaps adoption andadaptation of a foreign green building rating system may offer better solutionsfinancially and environmentally going forward.

One limitation of this study is that there may be some flaws in the database used.In the database, some projects labeled as higher ed seem to be private industry,such as geisinger, dunn construction, Bald Head Island Conservancy, GatewayCanyon Resort, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Smithsonian ConservationBiology Institute, etc. Therefore, numerous projects in the database may not beaccurate. However, this database is the best source of information for campusLEED-certified buildings.

Another limitation of this study is participation was not random as permissionwas needed from the IHE to obtain the data of interest. There were voluntary

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 0 9

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

study participants sharing certain types of data, which can create a potential biasin the selection of buildings. For example, IHEs only experiencing positivefinancial results may choose to participate. Also, the data set was notrepresentative of the national population of LEED-certified campus buildings.Furthermore, I did not compare actual to projected energy and water consumption.

I also did not examine specific credits within the LEED checklist. As IHEs mayselect different credits based on the type of building and location of their campus,this may affect upfront building costs and operating costs, which were not takeninto account in this study. Also, I used the USGBC guidelines for energy baselinesalthough some states and/or localities may require higher baselines forconventional buildings. This can cause overinflated energy savings as buildingsnot even considering LEED would have had to build to higher standards thanthese baselines.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the perceived upfront greenpremium barrier is valid by looking at actual initial costs of LEED-certifiedcampus buildings versus conventional campus buildings to determine if there isan actual upfront green premium. This study confirms the majority of findings inthe literature regarding the existence of an upfront green premium. In this study,an upfront green premium of $5.41/sf was determined for LEED-certified campusbuildings. Therefore, the perceived upfront green premium barrier may be validfor LEED-certified campus buildings. However, other considerations such asenvironmental and community impact should be taken into account, as part of anIHE’s mission is commitment to service versus solely economic feasibility.

Moreover, the energy savings found in this study confirm the majority of findingsin the literature as well. In this study, the annual energy savings was found to be$0.32/sf. This should help foster adoption of the LEED green building ratingsystem among campus buildings as there are down the line savings associatedwith the costs. As the majority of the cost benefit analyses do not showjustification from a financial perspective, it could be important to include otherdown the line savings. It should be noted that it is difficult to quantify some downthe line benefits.

This study should prove helpful to policymakers at higher education institutionseither considering implementation of a LEED-certified building or institutions thatalready have one or multiple LEED-certified buildings. Furthermore, this studyfills the gap in the literature in multiple ways. First, it provides a comprehensivecost-benefit analysis of a sample of LEED-certified campus buildings nationwide,which can be helpful to state and federal policymakers whom have the ability toprovide IHEs incentives, such as grants, for upfront costs to build LEED-certifiedbuildings. Second, this study has produced more recent findings for a sample thatfocuses strictly on the higher education sector. Additionally, this study providesconstruction and energy operating costs for a sample of campus LEED-certifiedbuildings within the U.S. that helps to confirm the perceived green premium.However, it was also found that there are operating energy savings that help toaddress upfront green premium barriers.

1 1 0 u H o p k i n s

In conclusion, the LEED green building rating system continues to grow at IHEs.Cost may not be the whole picture for IHEs as they tend to operate under adifferent ethos than private industry. IHEs may have a higher tendency toimplement policies that encourage environmental responsibility, although it maynot make financial sense. However, as seen from this study, although the upfrontgreen premium is reinforced, there are operating energy savings when viewing theproject from a building lifecycle perspective.

u R e f e r e n c e s

Chan, T.C. and M.D. Richardson. Ins and Outs of School Facility Management: More thanBricks and Mortar. R&L Education, 2005.

Dougherty, B. The Role of the LEED Green Building Rating System in Higher Education:Recent Trends and Status. Retrieved from: http: / /www.centerforgreenschools.org/Libraries/Resources Documents/Role of LEED in Higher Education.sflb.ashx, 2010.

Houghton, A., G. Vittori, and R. Guenther. Demystifying First-Cost Green BuildingPremiums in Healthcare. HERD, 2009, 2:4, 10–45.

Kats, G. Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits. Retrieved from: http: / /www.triumphsmartspace.com/resources /documents /Greening%20Americas%20Schools.pdf, 2006.

Kats, G., L. Alevantis, A. Berman, E. Mills, and J. Perlman. The Costs and FinancialBenefits of Green Buildings. Retrieved from: http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov/greenbuilding/design/costbenefit/report.pdf, 2003.

Kats, G., J. Braman, and M. James. Greening our Built World: Costs, Benefits, andStrategies. Retrieved from: http: / /ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.shu.edu/eds/detail?vid5

2&sid564bcb6e3-ab1e-4c17-a162-0b3f359e6e54%40sessionmgr112&hid5116&bdata5

JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db5cat00917a&AN5setoncat.729437, 2010.

Matthiessen, L.F. and P. Morris. Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database andBudgeting Methodology. Davis Langdon, 2004.

——. Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of SustainableDesign in the Light of Increased Market Adoption. Davis Langdon, 2007.

Moore, M.A., A.E. Boardman, A.R. Vining, D.L. Weimer, and D.H. Greenberg. Just GiveMe a Number! Practical Values for the Social Discount Rate. Journal of Policy Analysisand Management, 2004, 23:4, 789–812.

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http: / /nces.ed.gov/ ipeds/datacenter / InstitutionByGroup.aspx, n.d.

Newsham, G.R., S. Mancini, and B.J. Birt. Do LEED-Certified Buildings Save Energy?Yes, but.... Energy and Buildings, 2009, 41:8, 897–905.

Richardson, G.R.A. and J.K. Lynes. Institutional Motivations and Barriers to theConstruction of Green Buildings on Campus: A Case Study of the University of Waterloo,Ontario. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2007, 8:3, 339–54.

Ried, R.C. Using LEED as a Resource for Campus Sustainability Planning: A White Paper,2008.

Scofield, J.H. Early Performance of a Green Academic Building. Transactions, 2002, 108:2, 1214–32.

Stegall, N. and D. Dzombak. Cost Implications of LEED Silver Certification for New HouseResidence Hall at Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from: http: / /www.cmu.edu/environment/campus-green-design/green-buildings/ images/newhouse report.pdf, 2004.

L E E D C e r t i f i c a t i o n o f C a m p u s B u i l d i n g s u 1 1 1

J O S R E u V o l . 7 u N o . 1 – 2 0 1 5

Turner, C. and M. Frankel. Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings.Retrieved from: https: / /wiki.umn.edu/pub/PA5721 Building Policy/WebHome/LEEDENERGYSTAR STUDY.pdf, 2008.

Weber, C.L. and S.K. Kalidas. Cost-Benefit Analysis of LEED Silver Certification forNew House Residence Hall at Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from: http: / /www.cmu.edu/environment/campus-green-design/green-buildings/ images/newhousecbafinal.pdf, 2004.

All articles published in JOSRE are distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Erin A. Hopkins, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 or erinz1@vt.edu.